First of five lawsuits against former Woods Run prison guard settled
A state prison inmate has settled his lawsuit against former Woods Run prison guard Harry Nicoletti, two other guards and three administrators, Nicoletti's lawyer said on Thursday.
Steven Townsend said the terms of the settlement are confidential.
Jon Pushinsky, the attorney for “John Roe,” filed a motion on Thursday dismissing Nicoletti from the case, but Townsend, Nicoletti's lawyer, said the settlement covers all of the defendants.
The agreement leaves four other lawsuits pending against Nicoletti.
“It's the first one to settle,” Townsend said.
Pushinsky could not be reached for comment.
The lawsuit claimed the three guards physically abused the inmate and threatened him with rape while he was being held in SCI-Pittsburgh. It claims the three administrators either knew about the widespread abuse of inmates or chose to “purposely remain ignorant of the terror.”
Allegheny County juries convicted Nicoletti and one of the other guards named in the lawsuit, Tory D. Kelly, 42, of Aliquippa, of charges related to inmate abuse. Both are serving sentences of probation.
The third guard named in the lawsuit, Kevin Friess, 33, of Bellevue, was cleared of all charges. His lawyer, Jonathan Gesk, could not be reached.
The state is representing the three former prison administrators named in the lawsuit: Melvin Lockett, Martin Kovacs and Janice Niemiec.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.